See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330882126

UNECE develops Specifications for classifying material recovery projects in

the circular economy

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 89

20 authors, including:

Ulrich Kral David Laner

TU Wien Universität Kassel
34 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   754 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Helmut Rechberger Sigurd Heiberg

TU Wien Petrad
161 PUBLICATIONS   3,738 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Critical Raw Materials View project

Sustainable strategies of phosphorus management in Austria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrich Kral on 05 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

73/2018
Kral, U.; Laner, D.; Rechberger, H.; Heiberg, S.; Heuss-
Aßbichler, S.; Horváth, Z.; Szabó, K.; Morf, L. S.; Mueller, S.
R.; Wäger, P.; Nelen, D.; Winterstetter, A.; Osmani, M.,
Simoni, M. U.; Solar, S.; Stegemann, J.; Tulsidas, H.;
Weber, L.; Wellmer, F. W.; Žibret, G. (2018) “UNECE
develops specifications for classifying material recovery
projects in the circular economy”, In: Proceedings “25th
Wold Mining Congress”, 19-22 June, 2018, Astana,
Kazakhstan, p 1257-1273.
 UNECE DEVELOPS SPECIFICATIONS FOR
CLASSIFYING MATERIAL RECOVERY PROJECTS
INTHE CIRCULAR ECONOMY
*U. Kral, D. Laner and H. Rechberger
Technische Universität Wien, Karlsplatz 13/226, 1040 Vienna, Austria
(*Corresponding author: ulrich.kral@tuwien.ac.at)

S. Heiberg
Petronavit a.s, Stokkahagen 23, 4022 Stavanger, Norwegen

S. Heuss-Aßbichler
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Luisenstraße 37, 80333 Munich, Germany

Z. Horváth and K. Szabó

Mining and Geological Survey of Hungary, Columbus street 17-23, 1145 Budapest, Hungary

L. S. Morf
Office of Waste, Water, Energy and Air, Canton of Zurich, Weinbergstrasse 34, 8090 Zürich, Switzerland

S. R. Mueller and P. Wäger

EMPA - Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science & Technology
Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland

D. Nelen, a and A. Winterstetter, a, b

a VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Boeretang 200, 2400 MOL, Belgium
b University of Antwerp Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium.

M. Osmani
Loughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United Kingdom

M. U. Simoni
Geological Survey of Norway, Leiv Eirikssons vei 39, 7040 Trondheim, Norway

S. Solar
EuroGeoSurveys, 36-38, Rue Joseph II, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

J. Stegemann
University College London, Department of Civil, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom

H. Tulsidas
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Palais des Nations, 8-14 avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

L. Weber
Vice Chairman of International Organizing Committee of World Mining Congresses, Vienna, Austria

F. W. Wellmer
Former President of the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Stilleweg 2, Hannover, Germany

G. Žibret
Geological Survey of Slovenia, Dimičeva ulica 14, Ljubljana, Slovenia

1257
 UNECE DEVELOPS SPECIFICATIONS
FOR CLASSIFYING MATERIAL RECOVERY PROJECTS IN THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY

ABSTRACT

Securing the future supply of materials is fundamental for economic development and prosperity. While the use
of primary raw materials still dominates in terms of quantity, secondary raw materials are increasingly important
for the diversification of sources. However, the stakeholders striving for a circular economy lack harmonized
information on material quantities recoverable from secondary sources. The sources include in-use stocks
(buildings, infrastructure, and durable consumer goods), stocks out-of-use (mine tailings, landfills) and stocks
and flows at all processing stages of the material life cycle (production, use and end-of-life). The lack of
information impedes the identification of recycling and recovery opportunities and creates risks for investment
decisions concerning secondary raw material processing facilities. It also hinders national resource planners from
integrating primary and secondary sources in a comprehensive raw material supply plan that can be used for
accounting, scenario development, and policymaking.

To overcome the barriers, reliable and transparent methods to estimate the availability of raw materials from
secondary sources are, needed. Currently, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE),
through the Expert Group on Resource Classification (EGRC), is adding new Specifications for classifying
material recovery projects in the circular economy to the United Nations Framework Classification for
Resources (UNFC). The procedure assesses the maturity of recovery projects, from the early stage of prospection
to the final stage of production. Shifting projects from one stage to another requires overcoming barriers and
adding information in at least one of the following dimensions. First, the level of confidence in the knowledge
and potential recoverability of the quantities; second, the field project status and feasibility reflecting the status
of industrial activities; third, the socio-economic viability, including issues such as the absence of permits and
licenses or other necessary decisions in the economic, environmental and social domains.

The goal of this article is to introduce the overarching UNFC and its newest associated document, the
Specifications for the Application of the UNFC to Anthropogenic Resources. Therefore, the methods section
contains the principles of the UNFC and chronicles the development of the new Specifications. In the results
section the key elements of the Specifications are presented. The discussion and outlook section addresses the
ongoing revision of the UNFC, the need to harmonize key factors that affect the viability of recovery projects,
the need for more UNFC case studies, the challenges for national resource assessments and quality control of
anthropogenic resource assessments.

The target audiences of this conference article are stakeholders striving for a circular economy, evaluators, who
assess the availability of secondary raw materials, as well as government authorities, policymakers, investors and
decision makers in the waste and resource management sector and in the recycling industry, who wish to make
science-based judgements on the potential of recycling and material sourcing projects.

KEYWORDS

Availability of secondary raw materials, sustainable resource management, resource classification

1258
 INTRODUCTION

Access to raw materials influences the economic and political rank of nations, competitiveness of industries and
living standard of people (Risch, 1978). Over the 20th century, the extraction of material and energy resources
had increased by factor of eight (Krausmann et al., 2009). While the use of primary raw materials still dominates
in terms of quantity, secondary raw materials play an increasingly important role in sustaining material supply,
conserving primary deposits and reducing environmental impacts of their exploitation. However, the access to
raw materials is driven by the capability of proving the physical presence of quantities at the source, and by
framework conditions (political, social, economic, technological, environmental, regulatory) that affect the
viability of recovery operations. Resource assessments that estimate the value of material quantities at the source
have become a key instrument in industrial and governmental resource management. First, they serve for
monitoring the reserve base in the long run (Wellmer, 2018). Second, they are used for developing recovery
projects in public-private partnerships, where governments set legal framework conditions, the mining industry
provides the capability to implement recovery operations, and the capital market enables investments (Åm &
Heiberg, 2018).

Resource assessments are widely used to estimate primary material and energy resource endowments. The
results are standardized using resource classification principles and reported primarily in terms of recoverable
quantities. The resource classifications have evolved in response to various sectoral needs and local requirements
and appear to be progressing towards a harmonized global convention – the United Nations Framework
Classification for Resources (UNFC) (UNECE, 2013). An internationally accepted classification method is
currently not in use for material quantities from secondary sources such as mine tailings, buildings,
infrastructure, durable consumer goods, comprising different processing stages of the material life cycle
(production, use and end-of-life). The lack of standardized information impedes the identification of recycling
and recovery opportunities and creates risks for investment decisions concerning secondary raw material
processing facilities. Is also hinders national resource planners from integrating primary and secondary sources
in a comprehensive raw material supply plan that can be used for accounting, scenario development, and
policymaking. Concluding, making information on the availability of secondary raw materials consistent through
standardization helps to get better insights in the functioning of raw material systems and its influencing factors
that need to be addressed for an effective and efficient management of raw materials. It is for these reasons, the
United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) through the Expert Group on Resource
Classification (EGRC) extended the scope of the UNFC by incorporating Anthropogenic Resources and
developed the Draft Specifications for the Application of the UNFC to Anthropogenic Resources (hereinafter:
Specifications).

The Specifications facilitate the European roadmap on harmonizing raw material statistics on resources and
reserves. Parker et al. (2015) suggest communicating the resource potential of in-use stocks (e.g. electronic
equipment) and out-of-use stocks (e.g. mine tailings, urban and industrial waste landfills) with a standardized
resource classification method such as the UNFC. In this context, the new Specifications are also relevant for the
EU knowledge base on raw materials, which pools statistics on resource and reserves (Ciupagea, 2018). Also the
European Commission (DG Growth) recognized the potential of the UNFC for obtaining harmonized data for
mining waste and landfills, on regional, national and EU levels and for transmitting information to the EU level
(Chanes, 2018).

In contrast to geogenic resource assessments, anthropogenic resource assessments are comparably new and are
expected to become widely adopted in the future. Nevertheless, some remaining challenges need to be addressed.
Among them are, the practical use of categories to determine the viability of recovery projects, the integration of
the UNFC into national anthropogenic resource assessments, the quality assurance of anthropogenic resource
assessments, and the adoption of existing platforms to disseminate assessment results. Finally, this conference
article also invites experts to facilitate the UNECE efforts on sustainable resource management in general, and
on secondary raw materials in particular.

METHODOLOGY

This section, first, positions the UNFC in the context of resource assessments; second, briefly introduces the
UNFC; third, highlights the development of the new Specifications.

1259
Resource assessment and the role of the UNFC
Resource assessments provide estimates for the availability of material and energy quantities under defined
conditions. These conditions are set by technological, economic, environmental, social, regulatory and political
circumstances. They might change over time and are likely lead to periodic re-assessments of quantities at the
source. The results of resource assessments are communicated with standardized resource classification methods
such as the UNFC. In general, assessing resources follows four generic steps (adapted from Lederer et al., 2014):

1. Defining the goal and scope of the resource assessment.

2. Characterizing the material or energy resources in terms of quantity and quality through prospection
and exploration activities.
3. Evaluating the availability of material or energy quantities from a technological, environmental, social,
economic, legal and political perspective.
4. Allocating the material or energy quantities to categories by following the UNFC principles for
resource classification.

The UNFC
The UNFC is a universally acceptable and internationally applicable method that defines functional requirements
for communicating the availability of resources. According to Henley (2015) the UNFC is a classification
method and not a reporting standard or a reporting code 1. In that sense, the UNFC does not provide descriptive
guidance on how to perform resource assessments 2 and how to report them. However, the role of the UNFC is

• to enable comparability of resource estimates that are based on the application of alternative
classification methods, reporting standards and codes. A formalized process of matching categories
between different classification methods is done through bridging documents (e.g. UNECE, 2015a).
• to incorporate resource types that are currently not covered by existing classifications methods.

The UNFC is a comprehensive method that defines the basic principles and terms for harmonizing resource
classification (UNECE, 2013, Part I). Its application is facilitated through three types of associated documents:

1. Specifications: The Generic Specifications for the Application of the UNFC (UNECE, 2013, Part II)
occupy the top level. Subordinated to these are the commodity- or sector-related specifications that
apply the UNFC to specific types of material and energy resources such as geothermal energy
resources, uranium and thorium resources and anthropogenic resources (UNECE & IGA, 2016;
UNECE, 2017f; 2018).
2. Guidelines: The Guidelines address specific aspects in the context of resource classification. For
instance, guidance notes on how to define a recovery project (UNECE, 2016a) or on evaluator
qualifications (UNECE, 2017e).
3. Bridging documents: These documents provide guidelines to map quantities according to both, the
UNFC and alternative classification methods. The latter ones include the Russian Federation
classification of reserves of Oil and Combustible Gases (UNECE & State Commission of Mineral
Reserves of the Russian Federation, 2016), the CRIRSCO Template (UNECE, 2015a) and the
Petroleum Resources Management System (SPE et al., 2007). The bridging from the Chinese
classification methods for the Solid Minerals and for Petroleum to the UNFC is currently under
development (UNECE, 2017a; b).

1
According to Henley (2015), a reporting standard and a code include a classification method as integral
element, but a standard is amended by "a set of rules for how it should be used" (PERC, 2013; SME, 2017) and a
reporting code is a reporting standard "which is to be used by law in one or more jurisdictions" (JORC, 2012;
OSC, 2018).
2
The UNFC does not recommend, as for instance, methods for sampling and chemical analysis of metals in
residual flows or for collecting data about the material stocks in-use such electric and electronic equipment in
households, movables and industry.

1260
 United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC)

Specifications Guidelines Bridging documents

Specifications Guidance Note to support UNFC

CRIRSCO Template
for the application of the UNFC Definition of a Project

Guidelines for application of the UNFC Petroleum Resources Management

Specifications to apply the UNFC to Uranium and Thorium Resources System (PRMS)
to Renewable Energy Resources

Guidance Note to support

Specifications to apply the Russian Federation classification of
the UNFC Specification for
UNFC to Geothermal Energy reserves of Oil and Combustible Gases
Evaluator Qualifications
Resources

Guidance Note on Competent Person

Specifications to apply the Requirements and options for Resources NAE/IAEA „Red Book“
UNFC to Bioenergy Reporting
Resources

Draft Guidance on accommodating

Specifications to apply the UNFC Chinese resource classification system
environmental & social
for Injection Projects for for Solid Minerals
considerations in the UNFC
Geological Storage
Draft Guidance on accommodating
environmental & social considerations Chinese resource classification system
Specifications to apply the UNFC in the UNFC: Concepts and for Petroleum
to Anthropogenic Resources Terminology

Legend Acronyms

Published and under revision UNFC = United Nations Framework Classification for Resources
CRIRSCO = Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards
Published NEA/IAEA = Nuclear Energy Agency / International Atomic Energy Agency

Under development

Figure 1 – The UNFC and associated documents (Specifications, Guidelines and Bridging documents)

The UNFC methodology and the applications evolved over time. According to Parchmann & Reißmann (2009),
a precursor of the UNFC was developed by an international team headed by Prof. Fettweis, on behalf of the
UNECE, in 1979. At this time, the harmonization of resource estimates failed due to differences in the historical
development of economies and national traditions in resource assessment and classification. In 1992, more than
150 different classification methods were in use worldwide and the UNECE Working Group on Coal started to
develop an international acceptable classification method. The classification method has been proposed by the
German Federal Government based on a proposal from the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural
Resources (Kelter, 1991). Finally, the first version of the United Nations Framework Classification for solid
fuels and minerals has been published in 1997 (UNECE, 1997). In 2004, an extended version of the UNFC
incorporated all energy and solid mineral resources and considered oil, gas and uranium (UNECE, 2004). In
2009, the current version of the UNFC has been released (UNECE, 2010) and in 2013, complemented with
Specifications for its Application (UNECE, 2013). Since then, renewable energy resources and injection
projects, bioenergy resources and anthropogenic resources extended the scope of the UNFC (Table 1).

Table 1 – Applications of the UNFC evolved over time.

Year Commodity/sector
1997 Solid fuels and mineral commodities
2004 Oil, gas and uranium
2016 Renewable energy and injection projects
2017 Bioenergy
2018 Anthropogenic resources

1261
Developing Specifications to Apply the UNFC to Anthropogenic Resources
Both the UNFC and the Specifications are living documents that evolved over time and will be updated in the
future. This chapter chronicles the development of the Specifications to Apply the UNFC to Anthropogenic
Resources thus far. Our intention is to make the entire development process transparent and to give insights into
the voluntary work of the EGRC. It should also motivate non-EGRC members and future generations to be
engaged in global UNECE initiatives.

A brief chronic on the developments is given in Table 2. A comprehensive representation is provided in UNECE
(2018, Annex 2).

Table 2 – History of development of the Draft Specifications

Date Tasks and outputs
2012-10 The research project “Anthropogenic Resources” at Technische Universität Wien 3,
attempted to apply existing resource classification methods to anthropogenic resources
such as material quantities in old landfills.
2015-03 Case studies results were presented at the 6th Session of the EGRC (Winterstetter &
Fellner, 2015; Winterstetter et al., 2015b). The EGRC noted that “further research is
needed to define specific, quantifiable criteria for categorizing various kinds of
anthropogenic resources under UNFC-2009 that would allow for fair comparisons
between naturally occurring and anthropogenic resource deposits (UNECE, 2015b).“
2016-04 The European expert network MINEA (Mining the European Anthroposphere) started
its operation, aiming to initiate anthropogenic resource classification and reporting 4.
MINEA suggested to establish an EGRC Anthropogenic Resource Working Group
(Kral et al., 2016) and the EGRC approved the proposal during its 7th Session
(UNECE, 2016b).
2016-10 MINEA organized a public Workshop on “Opportunities and Challenges of
Anthropogenic Resources Classification” at the Geological and Geophysical Institute
in Budapest. The EGRC Anthropogenic Resource Working Group nominated its
Members and started to develop Initial Draft Specifications. They built on existing
Renewable Energy Specifications (UNECE, 2016c) and defined the terms with
common terminology in the waste and resource sector.
2017-03 The Initial Draft Specifications were submitted to the EGRC Technical Advisory
Group (TAG) for review and presented as unofficial room document (EGRC-
8/2017/INF.7) at the 8th EGRC Session in April 2017 (UNECE, 2017h).
2017-07 The EGRC Anthropogenic Resource Working Group submitted a revised version of
the Initial Draft Specifications to the EGRC TAG, which approved the document for
public review.
2017-08/10 The document Draft Specifications for the Application of UNFC to Anthropogenic
Resources (UNECE, 2017c) was open for public comments between 10 August 2017
and 8 October 2017. The EGRC Anthropogenic Resources Working Group received
245 comments in total, of which 201 are non-public (72%) and 44 are public (18%).
The public comments are published on the UNECE website (UNECE, 2017g).
2017-11 A resolution meeting for incorporating the comments was held at Evangelische
Akademie Tutzing, Germany. A Response to public comments is available upon
request.
2018-03 The EGRC TAG reviewed the revised Draft Specifications and submitted the Final
Draft Specifications to the EGRC Bureau.
2018-04 The EGRC, during its 9th Session, approved the Final Draft Specifications with a
request for endorsement by the UNECE Intergovernmental Sustainable Energy
Committee.

RESULTS

This section introduces key elements of the Specifications to apply the UNFC to Anthropogenic Resources. It
first, defines the term anthropogenic resources; second, explains where anthropogenic resources can be found;

3
The project aims at building a framework to characterize and evaluate anthropogenic resources regarding
quantity, quality and accessibility. Details are online available: http://iwr.tuwien.ac.at/en/anthropogenic-
resources/home/
4
The European expert network MINEA runs from 2016 to 2020. Details are online available: www.minea-
network.eu, www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15115

1262
third, demonstrates how the application of the Specifications works. Further details are available in the
Specifications document, which is published online by UNECE (2018).

What are anthropogenic resources?

The term “Anthropogenic Resource” has been adapted from the term „Mineral Resource” as defined in
CRIRSCO (2013) and is defined as follows: “An Anthropogenic Resource is a concentration or occurrence of
Anthropogenic Material 5 of intrinsic economic interest, in such form, quality and quantity that there are
reasonable prospects for eventual economic exploitation (UNECE, 2018)”.

Where do we find anthropogenic resources?

Anthropogenic resources are occurrences of materials that are being, or have been, produced, used or disposed of
by humans in the so-called “anthroposphere”. It includes in-use stocks (buildings, infrastructure, and durable
consumer goods), stocks out-of-use (mine tailings, landfills), stocks and flows at all processing stages of the
material life cycle (production, use and end-of-life) as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Generic representation of material quantities in the Anthroposphere.

The figure is taken from UNECE (2018).

How does the application of the UNFC to Anthropogenic Resources work?

The application of the UNFC to Anthropogenic Resources is illustrated in context of resource assessment (as
given above) as follows:

• Step 1 defines the ultimate goal of the resource assessment. The goal can be, among other, the
classification of copper quantities in-place and to use this information in national resource planning, or
the classification of metal quantities in municipal solid waste and to use this information for developing
a metal recovery project by a private-public partnership. It is obvious that the ultimate goal is
fundamental for the definition of the sourcing project. The UNFC defines a sourcing project as a
development or sourcing operation, which provides the basis for anthropogenic resource assessment.
Among other parameters, the lifetime of the project is defined by the economic limit, design life, or
contract period for the project (UNECE, 2018, section E and F). Further details are given in a Guidance
Note to Define Projects (UNECE, 2016a).
• Steps 2 and 3 address the characterization and evaluation of the quantities in the course of the recovery
project. The UNFC defines the functional requirements to communicate the classification of
anthropogenic resources. It does not provide any guidance on how to characterize and evaluate material
quantities in practice. The requirement is just to provide an evidence-based justification for allocating

5
An Anthropogenic Material is physical matter without any attribution from an economic, legislative, social or
environmental perspective, and without a specification of the aggregate state (solid, liquid, gaseous).
Anthropogenic materials include, for instance, mineral materials, sewage sludge, biomass and off-gas.

1263
 quantities to “categories”, which are defined in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. However, guidance notes
on the practical characterization and evaluation of specific anthropogenic resources types, sources and
world regions can be developed as complementary document in the future as well as case studies
• Step 4 is all about the classification and allocation of quantities to categories. It separates the “total
material quantities initially in place” into “past sourcing” and “future sourcing” as shown in Table 3.
Past sourcing includes quantities that have been either extracted and delivered to the market (sales
production) or disposed of in a mine tailing/landfill or emitted to the environment (non-sales
production) 6. Future sourcing includes quantities that are still in place and in principle available for
sourcing operations. These quantities are allocated to "categories" by considering three criteria
(dimensions): first, the level of confidence in the knowledge and potential recoverability of the
quantities (G-Axis); second, the field project status and feasibility (F-Axis); third, the socio-economic
viability (E-Axis). The selection and combination of “categories” from the E-, F-, and G-axis determine
the “(sub-) class”.

Table 3 – UNFC Classes and Sub-classes with selected categories.

The table has been compiled from UNECE (2018).
Past sourcing Sales Production
Non-sales Production
Future sourcing
Class Description Class Categories for the Sub-class Categories and sub-
Type of
source

E, F, G criteria categories for the E, F,

G criteria
E F G E F G
Total material quantity initially in place

Future sourcing by Commercial 1 1 1, 2, 3 On Production 1 1.1 1, 2, 3

commercial Projects Approved 1 1.2 1, 2, 3
development projects
Anthropogenic Material source

for Development
or ongoing sourcing Justified 1 1.3 1, 2, 3
operations. for Development
Potential future Potentially 2 2 1, 2, 3 Development 2 2.1 1, 2, 3
sourcing by contingent Commercial Pending
Known

development projects Projects Development 2 2.2 1, 2, 3

or ongoing sourcing On Hold
operations. Non- 3 2 1, 2, 3 Development 3.2 2.2 1, 2, 3
Commercial Unclarified
Projects Development 3.3 2.3 1, 2, 3
Not Viable
Additional quantities in place 3 4 1, 2, 3 3.3 4 1, 2, 3
associated with known sources.
Potential future Exploration 3 3 4 [No sub-classes 3.2 3 4
sourcing by successful Projects defined]
Anthrop.
Potential

Material

exploration activities
from potential sources.
Additional quantities in place 3 4 4 3.3 4 4
associated with potential sources.

Table 4 – E-axis categories

Category Definition
E1 Recovery and sale has been confirmed to be economically
viable
E2 Recovery and sale is expected to become economically
viable in the foreseeable future
E3 Recovery and sale is not expected to become economically
viable in the foreseeable future or evaluation is at too early a
stage to determine economic viability.

Table 5 – F-axis categories

Category Definition

6
A mine tailing or landfill can also be subject of resource classification. In this case, the former non-sales
production quantities will be allocated to “future souring” and associated classes.

1264
 F1 Feasibility of recovery by a defined development project or
mining operation has been confirmed.
F2 Feasibility of recovery by a defined development project or
mining operation is subject to further evaluation.
F3 Feasibility of recovery by a defined development project or
mining operation cannot be evaluated due to limited
technical data.
F4 No development project or mining operation has been
identified.

Table 6 – G-axis categories

Category Definition
G1 Quantities associated with a known deposit that can be
estimated with a high level of confidence.
G2 Quantities associated with a known deposit that can be
estimated with a moderate level of confidence.
G3 Quantities associated with a known deposit that can be
estimated with a low level of confidence.
G4 Estimated quantities associated with a potential deposit,
based primarily on indirect evidence.

Figure 3 – The UNFC cube

DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK

This section includes a discussion and outlook on: first, ongoing revisions of the UNFC; second, the need to
identify factors that affect the maturity of recovery projects; third, developing case studies that demonstrate the
applicability and usefulness of the UNFC; fourth, the integration of the UNFC to national resource assessment;
fifth, quality assurance of anthropogenic resource assessments; sixth, public dissemination opportunities for the
UNFC results:

(1) At the time of its publication in 2013, the United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy
and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009 (UNFC-2009) was designed for classifying recovery
projects for geogenic resources. In the last years, non-geogenic resources such as renewable energy and
anthropogenic resources have extended the scope of the UNFC-2009 and its original title, terminology
and definitions sound inappropriate for these new resource types. For this reason, the title has been

1265
 changed from “United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and
Resources 2009 (UNFC-2009)” to “United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC)”
and a process for revising the entire UNFC has been started in 2017 (UNECE, 2017h, section XI). In
the course of the UNFC revisions, we suggest to use non-resource-specific terminology and definitions
that enclose the bundle of different resource types.
(2) The UNFC defines functional requirements to communicate the availability of resources. This offers a
maximum of flexibility and leaves the characterization and evaluation of quantities to the evaluator who
examines the resource assessment. The professional organisations were initially given this task. They
chose to focus on their own classifications and then, have adjusted these over time to take account of
the important elements on which UNFC has been built. These classification methods partly include
factors 8 that affect the viability of recovery projects (e.g. PERC, 2013; CRIRSCO, 2016 referred to as
Modifying Factors). However, factors for assessing the viability of material recovery from secondary
sources are available (e.g. Suttibak & Nitivattananon, 2008; Miranda Carreño et al., 2010; Troschinetz,
2015; Winterstetter, 2016), but the studies differ from each other when it comes to the selection,
definition and assessment of economic, technological, environmental, legal and political factors. This
impedes comparisons of anthropogenic resources estimates and requires transparency to allow
reproducibility of estimates. The development and review of further case studies on recovery projects in
different world regions are needed to define a set of key factors that should be considered in
anthropogenic resource assessments.
(3) The assessment and classification of anthropogenic resources has been and is currently tested in various
case studies.
a. Before the release of the Specifications, the application of the UNFC has been tested in various
academic case studies. They focused on material recovery from closed landfills in Belgium
(Winterstetter et al., 2015a; Winterstetter et al., 2016), mining waste in Hungary (Horváth et
al., 2018) and on metal, salt and bottom-ash recovery from municipal solid waste incineration
in Austria (Huber & Fellner, 2018). Also, a first methodology for the evaluation and
classification of anthropogenic resources under the UNFC (Winterstetter, Laner et al., 2016)
and guidelines for mining old landfills have been published (Winterstetter et al., 2018).
b. The Specifications are now being applied to three case studies. First, on metal recovery out of
waste incineration residues in the Canton Zurich, Switzerland (Mueller et al., 2018). Studies on
the recovery potential (e.g. Morf et al., 2013) paved the ground for implementing and
optimizing the enhanced recovery technology, which is now in daily operation. Second, on
chromium recovery from steel slags (Winterstetter, 2018). Third, on critical metal recovery
from electrical and electronic devices in passenger vehicles (Waeger et al., 2018).
c. There are also alternative classifications methods that have been applied in academic case
studies such as the reserve concept for phosphorus in landfills (Lederer, Laner et al., 2014) and
for materials in a subway network (Lederer et al., 2016), an availability concept for rare earth
metals from electrical and electronic waste (Mueller et al., 2015), and a reserve concept for
copper and aluminum on a national level (Maung et al., 2017a; Maung et al., 2017b). These
alternative classification methods differ from the UNFC and prevent a comparative analysis of
resource classification results. The phenomena of framework diversity and lack of
comparability also occurred in the primary raw material sector. The lack of comparability
motivated common efforts to develop a universally acceptable and internationally applicable
tool for resource classification, which finally resulted the development and application of the
UNFC (see Fettweis, 1981; Parchmann & Reißmann, 2009; Wellmer, 2009).

All these attempts demonstrate the applicability of the UNFC and alternative classification methods and
motivate twofold. First, to develop new case studies for further types of resources, in different world
regions, and in cooperation with the waste and recycling industry, governments and authorities. Second,
to promote the application of the UNFC and its Specifications to allow a sound comparison on the
availability of secondary raw materials.

(4) Governmental resource management should take the total material quantities on national territory into
account. The material balance of the total quantities can be maintained by the full application of the
UNFC classes (UNECE, 2009). The full application draws upon quantities in unknown sources
(additional quantities in place, explored quantities) and known sources (e.g. additional quantities in

8
Factors are technological, economic, environmental, political capabilities that need to be addressed in order to
re-categorize and re-classify recovery projects.

1266
 place, non-commercial, potential commercial and commercial quantities) as well as sales and non-sales
production quantities (see Table 3). On national level, the characterization of quantities needs to follow
a systems approach as is done, for instance, by the US Geological Survey (Nassar, 2018), the European
funded project ProSUM (Huisman et al., 2017) and individual experts (e.g. Pauliuk et al., 2013;
Buchner et al., 2015; Løvik et al., 2015; Yellishetty et al., 2017). Evaluating the availability of
quantities from an economic, technological, environmental, legal and political perspective is needed
before the quantities can be categorized with the UNFC. Up to now, the UNFC has not been used as
communication tool for national anthropogenic resource assessments. However, a workshop on the
fundamentals for national anthropogenic resource assessments will be organized by COST Action
MINEA and EU project MinFuture 9 on 18. September 2018 in Vienna. We will tackle the
methodological and practical challenges that go along with the full application of the UNFC classes.
Among others, the challenges include linkages between the characterization, evaluation and
classification of quantities (e.g. Müller, 2018).
(5) Communicating classification results must consider three key principles: transparency, completeness
and competence (Benndorf, 2015). These principles gains special relevance when the UNFC is adopted
by an organization as a mandatory standard for assessing the availability of anthropogenic resources.
When it comes to competence and reporting, the EGRC addresses the competent person requirements
and options for resources reporting in a note that “contains detailed guidance on appropriate quality
assurance mechanisms, qualification criteria and/or disclosure obligations (UNECE, 2017d)”. However,
evaluator competence is also needed for anthropogenic resource assessments in non-mandatory
environments. Therefore, a note gives guidance for evaluator qualifications (UNECE, 2017e).
Currently, the EGRC Anthropogenic Resource Working Group is looking for organizations that strive
for anthropogenic resource assessments and discuss whether or not evaluators should be certified
(Heuss-Aßbichler, 2018).
(6) Geogenic resource classification results are disseminated by platforms such as the European Minerals
Yearbook (Minerals4eu, 2018), or are reported to the financial market to guide investments, and to the
public to manage public expectations (e.g. Aker BP, 2017; Glencore, 2017; Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate, 2017; Ministry of Coal, 2018). Currently, public platforms for anthropogenic resource
classification results are not in place. The opportunities and challenges with existing platforms such as
the EU Raw Material Information System (European Commission, 2018), the Urban Mine Platform
(Huisman et al., 2018), the European Minerals Yearbook (Horváth, 2018; Minerals4eu, 2018), and the
United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (United Nations et al., 2014), must be
identified and resolved.

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

The conference article is based upon work of the EGRC Anthropogenic Resource Working Group, COST Action
Mining the European Anthroposphere (MINEA) - supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology) and on the discussion during the Workshop on “Training on Application of UNFC” and the
Symposium on the “Availability of raw materials from secondary sources - A key element of circular economy”.
Both events took place during the UNECE Resource Management Week 2018, 23-27 April 2018, Geneva,
Switzerland.

Date: 2018-06-12

9
The MinFuture project focuses on global material flows and demand-supply forecasting for mineral strategies.
Further details are available online: https://minfuture.eu/.

1267
 REFERENCES

Aker BP (2017). Annual statement of reserves 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.akerbp.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/03/Annual-Statement-of-Reserves-2017-1.pdf.

Åm, K. & Heiberg, S. (2018). The four principal applications of the UNFC. Conference presentation. Workshop
"Training on Application of UNFC" during the UNECE Resource Management Week 2018, 23-27 April 2018,
Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/ws_UNFC.train_PETRAD_apr.2
018/6_Four.Principal.Applications.UNFC_S.pdf.

Benndorf, J. (2015). Vorratsklassifikation nach internationalen Standards – Anforderungen und Modellansätze in

der Lagerstättenbearbeitung Markscheidewesen 122(2): 6-14.

Buchner, H., Laner, D., Rechberger, H. & Fellner, J. (2015). Dynamic material flow modeling: an effort to
calibrate and validate aluminum stocks and flows in Austria Environ Sci Technol 49(9): 5546-5554.
10.1021/acs.est.5b00408.

Chanes, R. (2018). General overview of on-going actions at EU level. Conference presentation. UNECE
Resource Management Week 2018, 23-27 April 2018, Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/26.04/p.7_R.Chanes.pdf.

Ciupagea, C. (2018). The European Commission's Raw Materials Information System (RMIS): the importance of
resource classification in integrating knowledge and EU policies on raw materials. Conference presentation.
Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular economy, 24
April 2018, Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/12_Constantin.Ciupa
gea.pdf.

CRIRSCO (2013). International Reporting Template for the public reporting of exploration results, mineral
resources and mineral reserves. Committee for mineral reserves internatinal reporting standards (CRIRSCO).
Retrieved from: www.crirsco.com/crirsco_template_v2.pdf.

CRIRSCO (2016). "Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standard (CRIRSCO)". Retrieved
on 20. March 2016, from http://www.crirsco.com/welcome.asp.

European Commission (2018). "European Raw Material Information System (RMIS)". Retrieved on 29 Mai
2018, from http://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

Fettweis, G. B. (1981). Die internationale Einordnung von Mineralvorräten "The international classification of
mineral resources" der Vereinten Nationen. Enstehung und Struktur Erzmetall 34(7/8): 400 - 406, 465 - 469.

Glencore (2017). Resources & Reserves as at 31 December 2017. Retrieved from:

www.glencore.com/dam/jcr:a2823ab5.../GLEN-2017-Resources-Reserves-Report.pdf.

Henley, S. (2015). Reporting standards, codes, templates, and classifications: conversion, bridging, and mapping
European Geologist 39: 40-42.

Heuss-Aßbichler, S. (2018). UNFC Evaluator Qualifications and Competent Person Requirements. Conference
presentation. Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular
economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/14_Soraya.Heuss.pdf
.

Horváth, Z. (2018). European Minerals Yearbook as a reporting platform for anthropogenic resource
classification. Conference presentation. Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources
- a key aspect of circular economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/13_Zoltan.Horvarth.p
df.

1268
Horváth, Z., Szabó, K., Bányácski, S. & Kral, U. (2018). Harmonization between national and international
classification systems – Case studies for mining wastes in Hungary. Conference poster. UNECE Resource
Management Week 2018, 23-27 April 2018, Geneva.

Huber, F. & Fellner, J. (2018). Integration of LCA with monetary valuation into a resource classification
framework: The case of MSWI fly ash. Conference presentation. Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials
from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/09_Florian.Huber.pdf
.

Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tertre, F., Söderman, M., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A. N., Wäger, P., Kushnir,
D., Rotter, V. S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, A., Habib, H., Wagner, M. & Downes, S.
(2017). Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and mining wastes (ProSUM) - Final Report.
Brussels, Belgium.

Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tertre, F., Söderman, M., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A. N., Wäger, P., Kushnir,
D., Rotter, V. S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, A., Habib, H., Wagner, M. & Downes, S.
(2018). "Urban Mine Platform". Retrieved on 2 June 2018, from http://www.urbanmineplatform.eu.

JORC (2012). Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves
(The JORC Code). Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and
the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC). Retrieved from:
http://www.jorc.org.

Kelter, D. (1991). Classification Systems for Coal Resources - a Review of the Existing Systems and
Suggestions for Improvements. Geologisches Jahrbuch A 127: Umwelt - Rohstoffe - Regionale & Angewandte
Geologie. Barthel, F. Bundesanstalt Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe

Kral, U., Heuss-Aßbichler, S. & Simoni, M. (2016). Towards a Classification System for Anthropogenic Raw
Materials. Conference presentation. Expert Group on Resource Classification, 7th Session, 26.-29. April 2016,
Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc7_apr2016/28_April/11_Ulrich.pdf.

Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H. & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth
in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century Ecological Economics 68(10): 2696-2705.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007.

Lederer, J., Kleemann, F., Ossberger, M., Rechberger, H. & Fellner, J. (2016). Prospecting and Exploring
Anthropogenic Resource Deposits The Case Study of Vienna's Subway Network Journal of Industrial Ecology
20(6): 1320-1333. 10.1111/jiec.12395.

Lederer, J., Laner, D. & Fellner, J. (2014). A framework for the evaluation of anthropogenic resources: the case
study of phosphorus stocks in Austria Journal of Cleaner Production 84(0): 368-381. DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.078.

Løvik, A. N., Restrepo, E. & Müller, D. B. (2015). The global anthropogenic gallium system: Determinants of
demand, supply and efficiency improvements Environmental Science & Technology. 10.1021/acs.est.5b00320.

Maung, K. N., Hashimoto, S., Mizukami, M., Morozumi, M. & Lwin, C. M. (2017a). Assessment of the
Secondary Copper Reserves of Nations Environmental Science & Technology 51(7): 3824-3832.
10.1021/acs.est.6b04331.

Maung, K. N., Yoshida, T., Liu, G., Lwin, C. M., Muller, D. B. & Hashimoto, S. (2017b). Assessment of
secondary aluminum reserves of nations Resources, Conservation and Recycling 126: 34-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.016.

Minerals4eu (2018). "European Minerals Yearbook". Retrieved on 20 May 2018, from

http://minerals4eu.brgm-rec.fr/m4eu-yearbook/theme_selection.html.

Ministry of Coal (2018). Annual report 2017-18. Goverment of India. Retrieved from:
https://coal.nic.in/sites/upload_files/coal/files/coalupload/AnnualReport1718.pdf.

1269
Miranda Carreño, R., Bobu, E., Grossmann, H., Stawicki, B. & Blanco Suárez, Á. (2010). Factors influencing a
higher use of recovered paper in the European paper industry Cellulose Chemistry and Technology 44(10): 419-
430.

Morf, L. S., Gloor, R., Haag, O., Haupt, M., Skutan, S., Lorenzo, F. D. & Böni, D. (2013). Precious metals and
rare earth elements in municipal solid waste – Sources and fate in a Swiss incineration plant [Precious metals
and rare earth elements in municipal solid waste – Sources and fate in a Swiss incineration plant]. Waste
Management 33(3): 634-644. 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.010.

Mueller, S. R., Kral, U. & Waeger, P. (2018). Managing material recovery projects from exploration to
production: Lessons learned from metal recovery operations in the waste and resource sector of the Canton
Zurich. Status: Working paper under development.

Mueller, S. R., Wäger, P. A., Widmer, R. & Williams, I. D. (2015). A geological reconnaissance of electrical and
electronic waste as a source for rare earth metals Waste Management 45: 226-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.038.

Müller, D. (2018). Challenges for anthropogenic resource classification on national level. Conference
presentation. Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular
economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc4_april2013/24.04_RM/04_Daniel.M%C3%
BCller.pdf.

Nassar, N. T. (2018). Quantifying and characterizing in-use stocks of non-fuel mineral commodities. Conference
presentation. Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular
economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva, Switzerland.

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (2017). The petroleum resources on the Norwegian Continental Shelf per
31.12.2017. Retrieved from: http://www.npd.no/en/Topics/Resource-accounts-and--
analysis/Temaartikler/Resource-accounts/2017/.

OSC (2018). National Instrument 43-101. Standards of disclosure for mineral projects. (OSC), O. S. C.
Retrieved from: http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/block484_doc111.pdf.

Parchmann, J. & Reißmann, R. (2009). Die UNO-Rahmenvorratsklassifikation und ihre Anwendung bei der
Neubewertung der Lagerstättenvorräte in Erz- und Spatlagerstätten Sachsens [The United Nations Classification
Framework and its application for the re-assessment of deposits in Saxony]. Geohistorica 5: 3-20.

Parker, D., Petavratzi, E., Mankelow, J., Waugh, R. & Bertrand, G. (2015). Final Report - Minventory: EU raw
materials statistics on resources and reserves. Buckinghamshire. Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/10224/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native.

Pauliuk, S., Wang, T. & Müller, D. B. (2013). Steel all over the world: Estimating in-use stocks of iron for 200
countries Resources, Conservation and Recycling 71: 22-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.11.008.

PERC (2013). PERC Reporting Standard 2013. Pan-European Reserves & Resources Reporting Committee
(PERC). Bruxelles. Retrieved from:
http://www.vmine.net/PERC/documents/PERC_REPORTING_STANDARD_2013.pdf.

Risch, B. W. K. (1978). The raw material supply of the European Community: The importance of secondary raw
materials Resources Policy 4(3): 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4207(78)90045-4.

SME (2017). SME Guide for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves. Society
for Mining - Metallurgy and Exploration (SME). Englewood.

SPE, AAPG, WPC & SPEE (2007). Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS). Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE) - American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) - World Petroleum Council (WPC) -
Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE). Retrieved from:
http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/Petroleum_Resources_Management_System_2007.pdf.

1270
Suttibak, S. & Nitivattananon, V. (2008). Assessment of factors influencing the performance of solid waste
recycling programs Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53(1): 45-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.09.004.

Troschinetz, A. M. (2015). Twelve factors influencing sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in
developing countries. Master Thesis, Michigan Technological University.

UNECE (1997). Internationale Rahmen-Vorratsklassifikation der Vereinten Nationen. Feste fossile Brennstoffe
und mineralische Rohstoffe. [United Nations International Framework Classification for reserves/resources.
Solid Fuels and Mineral Commodities.]. United Nations (UN).

UNECE (2004). United Nations Framework Classification for Energy and Mineral Resources
(ENERGY/WP.1/R.77). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFCemr.pdf.

UNECE (2009). 7th Session Report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Harmonization of Fossil Energy and
Mineral Resources Terminology (ECE/ENERGY/GE.3/2009/L.5). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/oct09/ECE.ENERGY.GE.3.2009.L.5_draft_e.pdf.

UNECE (2010). United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and
Resources 2009 (ECE/ENERGY/85). ECE Energy Series No. 39. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/unfc2009/UNFC2009_ES39_e.pdf.

UNECE (2013). United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and
Resources 2009 incorporating Specifications for its Application. UNECE Energy Series No. 42. United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/pub/UNFC2009_Spec_ES42.pdf.

UNECE (2015a). Brigding document between the CRIRSCO Template and the UNFC-2009. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC_specs/Revised_CRIRSCO_Template_UN
FC_Bridging_Document.pdf.

UNECE (2015b). Report of the Expert Group on Resource Classification (ECE/ENERGY/GE.3/2015/2). Geneva.
Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/egrc/egrc6_apr2015/ECE.ENERGY.GE.3.2015.2_e.pdf.

UNECE (2016a). Guidance Note to support the United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and
Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009. Definition of a Project. Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC-Guidance-
Notes/UNFC.Project.Guidance.Note_15.07.2016.pdf.

UNECE (2016b). Report of the Expert Group on Resource Classification [ECE/ENERGY/GE.3/2016/2].

Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/egrc/egrc7_apr2016/ECE.ENERGY.GE.3.2016.2_e.pdf.

UNECE (2016c). Specifications for the application of the United Nations Framework Classification of Fossil
Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009 to Renewable Energy Resources. United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC_specs/UNFC.RE_e.pdf.

UNECE (2017a). Draft bridging document between China Mineral Reserves and Resources Classification
System (CMRRCS) and UNFC-2009 (EGRC-8/2017/INF.5). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc8_apr_2017/EGRC.8.2017.INF.5e.pdf.

UNECE (2017b). Draft bridging document between Chinese petroleum classification system and UNFC-2009
(EGRC-8/2017/INF.6). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc8_apr_2017/EGRC.8.2017.INF.6e.pdf.

UNECE (2017c). Draft Specifications for the application of the United Nations Framework Classification for
Resources to Anthropogenic Resources. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Geneva.
Retrieved from: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC-Anthropogenic-Public-
Comments/Draft_Anthropogenic_Resources_Specifications_for_public_comment.pdf.

1271
UNECE (2017d). Guidance Note on Competent Person Requirements and Options for Resources Reporting.
Retrieved from: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC-Guidance-
Notes/Guidance_Note_on_Competent_Person_Requirements_and_Options_for_Resource_Reporting.pdf.

UNECE (2017e). Guidance Note to support the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources
Specification for Evaluator Qualifications. Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC-Guidance-
Notes/Revised_UNFC_Guidance_Note_to_support_UNFC_Specification_for_Evaluator_Qualifications.pdf.

UNECE (2017f). Guidelines for Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy
and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009 for Uranium and Thorium Resources. Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/images/pub/1734723E_WEB.pdf.

UNECE (2017g). "Public comments". Retrieved, from http://www.unece.org/energywelcome/areas-of-

work/httpswwwuneceorgenergysereserveshtml/more-areas-of-work/unfc-public-comments/2017-unfc-
anthropogenic-resources-public-comments.html.

UNECE (2017h). Report of Expert Group on Resource Classification (ECE/ENERGY/GE.3/2017/2). Geneva.

Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc8_apr_2017/ece.energy.ge.3.2017.2_e.pdf.

UNECE (2018). Draft Specification for the application of UNFC for Resources to Anthropogenic resources
ECE/ENERGY/GE.3/2018/. Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/ece.energy.ge.3.2018.5_e.pdf.

UNECE & IGA (2016). Specifications for the application of the United Nations Framework Classification for
Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009 (UNFC-2009) to Geothermal Energy Resources.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and International Geothermal Association (IGA).
Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC_GEOTH/UNFC.Geothermal.Specs.pdf.

UNECE & State Commission of Mineral Reserves of the Russian Federation (2016). Bridging Document
between the Oil and Fuel Gas Reserves and Resources Classification of the Russian Federation of 2013 and the
United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009 (UNFC-
2009)
(UNFC-2009). Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC.RF.BD/UNFC_RF.BD_e.

United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International
Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) & The World Bank (2014).
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framwork. United Nations. New York. Retrieved
from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/seea_cf_final_en.pdf.

Waeger, P., Haarman, A., Løvik, A., Mueller, S. R., Restrepo, E. & Widmer, R. (2018). Scarce / critical metals
recovery from electrical and electronic devices in passenger vehicles. Conference presentation. Symposium on
the Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular economy, 24 April 2018,
Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/19_Patrick.Wager.pd
f.

Wellmer, F. W. (2009). Ergänzende Bemerkungen zum Vortrag "Die UNO-Rahmenvorratsklassifikation und

ihre Anwendung bei der Neubewertung der Lagerstättenvorräte in Erz- und Spatlagerstätten Sachsens" von J.
Parchmann & R. Reißmann [Comments to the lecture "The United Nations Classification Framework and its
application for the re-assessment of deposits in Saxony" given by J. Parchmann & R. Reißmann]. Geohistorica
5: 21-23.

Wellmer, F. W. (2018). Why we need a standardized internationally accepted resource classification system for
primary and secondary resources: Opportunities and challenges. Conference presentation. Symposium on the
Availibility of raw materials from secondary sources - a key aspect of circular economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva,
Switzerland. Retrieved from:

1272
 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/01_Friedrich.Wellme
r.pdf.

Winterstetter, A. (2016). Mines of Tomorrow. Evaluating and Classifying Anthropogenic Resources: A New
Methodology. Phd Thesis, Technische Universität Wien.

Winterstetter, A. (2018). Evaluating the secondary resource potential of Chromium rich slags from stainless
steel production. Conference presentation. Symposium on the Availibility of raw materials from secondary
sources - a key aspect of circular economy, 24 April 2018, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc9_apr2018/24.04_RM/10_Andrea.Winterste
tter.pdf.

Winterstetter, A. & Fellner, J. (2015). Classification of Anthropogenic Resources. Conference presentation.

Expert Group on Resource Classfification, 6th Session, 28. April - 1. May 2015, Geneva. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/unfc_egrc/egrc6_apr2015/30_April/11_Wiintersletter.Felln
er.AnthropRes.pdf.

Winterstetter, A., Laner, D., Rechberger, H. & Fellner, J. (2015a). Framework for the evaluation of
anthropogenic resources: A landfill mining case study – Resource or reserve? Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 96: 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.004.

Winterstetter, A., Laner, D., Rechberger, H. & Fellner, J. (2016). Evaluation and classification of different types
of anthropogenic resources: the cases of old landfills, obsolete computers and in-use wind turbines Journal of
Cleaner Production 133: 599-615. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.083.

Winterstetter, A., Laner, D., Rechberger, H., Fellner, J., Stiftner, R. & Weber, L. (2015b). United Nations
Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources - How do anthropogenic
resources fit in? 6th Expert Group Meeting on Resource Classification. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/egrc/egrc6_apr2015/UNFC_Anthropogenic.Resources.pd
f.

Winterstetter, A., Wille, E., Nagels, P. & Fellner, J. (2018). Decision making guidelines for mining historic
landfill sites in Flanders Journal of Waste Management. 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.049.

Yellishetty, M., Huston, D., Graedel, T. E., Werner, T. T., Reck, B. K. & Mudd, G. M. (2017). Quantifying the
potential for recoverable resources of gallium, germanium and antimony as companion metals in Australia Ore
Geology Reviews 82: 148-159. 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2016.11.020.

1273
View publication stats